Comments on President's Report

For several years, I have considered that the term “learning disabilities” refers to nothing specific. Having the diagnosis doesn’t seem to assist with teaching or learning. Any of seven (7) conditions may occur in any combination. (This results in 7! or 7x6x5x4x3x2x1=5,040 different possible combinations. Too many for my feeble mind to consider!)

In the past couple of years, researchers are reporting that IQ is not a predictor of reading success. (Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol 33, 2000—I can’t remember the author(s).) I was interested to have some confirmation what I already suspected—that folks of average- and borderline-measured IQ could become as good a reader as the person with a genius-level IQ.

For the family, the term LD just seems to be a ticket to extra help (and that varies by school) and accommodations/modifications for the child. For the school district, it is a ticket to some extra income. Past that, the term doesn’t seem to have much specific meaning.

Hey I totally agree. And that is some of the sentiment I sent to the website address in the text (sorry for the screwed up post!) and maybe, just maybe if more teachers and parents express these same concerns maybe something will be done.

Laurie

To get close to that debate from the parenting page, yes indeed, if we are measuring reading as reading words, then IQ has little to do with it. This is why I argue with Reed Martin’s statement to the effect that with a good IQ the child should be able to read on grade level.

I have taught mentally retarded children who had IQs of 68 who could decode words on grade level and read fluently, w/o comprehension. This is why I also state I find the inverse: children who have respectable IQ scores and decent comprehension who never become totally normally proficient word readers, though they improve greatly.

IQ and word reading skill have little to do with one another.

Susan:

<>

If a child is LD, why shouldn’t the child receive extra help? In many states, there needs to be documented evidence of a processing disorder in addition to the current achievement/intelligence discrepancy. I’ve seen examples of much abuse because that particular factor is not taken into consideration. There is a difference between underachievement and a learning disability. Any number of students can have the discrepancy, but have no learning disability. I have tested many students and have seen this a great deal.

Perhaps you have never worked with severely dyslexic students. How would you explain to them why, being as intelligent as they are, why they can’t read, write, spell, and/or do basic math? Fortunately, many of these students have supportive families that advocate for them. And then there are other students have families that tell them every day that they are stupid, and they will never amount to anything. And these same students never find out that they can learn.

Perhaps the reason why the LD label may have become meaningless to some is because of a lack of adequately trained teachers. Another reason is that many districts emphasize teaching compensatory strategies over remediation, denying the students the opportunity for becoming independent learners. Providing skills in both areas would be advantageous.

Marilyn

In the beginning part of my post, I said that the term LD doesn’t seem to mean anything. I said nothing about any other terms, such as Dyslexia. I also said nothing about students getting help, just indicated that the term LD isn’t helpful in knowing what to do to help a student. It is some much more complex than a discrepancy between IQ and achievement. I also believe that the human mind is too complicated to bottleneck into one FS IQ score. I am, however, fascinated with how my students receive, process, store, retrieve, and output information without regard for their labels.

I do believe that many teachers are ill-trained. I’m not one of them, however. I am the parent of a dyslexic now-adult who hates to read but can do so on a high-school level. I originally learned LiPS and Orton-Gillingham because he didn’t learn to read in school. I then went back to college to become certified to teach Elem. Ed and Spec Ed along with Spec Reading. I could tell you some very interesting stories about my reading classes (whole language exclusives…).

When my son was 3, he was given the Wechsler Primary Scales (IQ for tiny kids) and only scored an 80. He did a little better on the Kaufmann because it is not verbal. Teachers then told me that my expectations for him were too high—especially later in elementary school (Kindergarten) who would say—“well, we expect him to be a slower learner.” That made me dig in my heels and began with Larry Silver on acquiring, storing, retrieving, and outputting information. (I’ve since become fascinated with Pat Wolfe, Eric Jensen, and others.) I worked intensively to play games that would help deficit areas (i.e. puzzles for low object assembly. I used a book called “WISC Compilation by Academic Therapy Publications). By the end of first grade, his IQ was low 90’s. School told me “IQ is static—it doesn’t change. Must have been a bad test…” Meanwhile, he didn’t learn to read. Then I stumbled upon Pat Lindamood at a parent meeting with a parent organization. Having a gifted ability in PA myself was an asset in helping my son…once I knew how to help. When he stalled out on LiPS (then called Auditory in Depth), I found Wilson Anderson—the best learning mentor I could ever with to have. He taught me OG. I have natural comprehension and fluency strategies skills. BTW, 4th grade IQ test was 115 FS. Static, my eye! I just enriched the heck out of the environment and always have.

I have been teaching dyslexic readers for over six years—only two of them in public schools. I was afraid to go to public schools, fearing I’d be in trouble very quickly due to my strong parent advocacy background. Fortunately, I found a Sped Director that is very passionate about reading and early intervention. I haven’t gotten in trouble yet.

As a parent, I fought to keep the discrepancy formula in my state as a leader for a parent organization. As a teacher I just want to help kids learn and succeed and feel emotionally safe at school. I don’t care what the label or if they have one. I would if it helped me diagnose teaching and learning issues but it doesn’t.

I respect if kids & families wish to know what is the label. It is their right.

I’ll stumble off my soap-box now.

My #1 reading mentor, Wilson Anderson, told me one thing that I will never forget: If the child doesn’t learn, it is *never* their fault. Always believe that they are doing the best job they know how to do and change your teaching.”

Acting lazy as a mask is different that being lazy. I truly believe that each person wants to learn—to be successful in their childhood work. I have met some traumatized children who couldn’t think about learning until they had other help, but I still believe that the desire is in there somewhere.

As I said in the post above, I respect the feeling of need to know that the problem is named LD—that name isn’t very helpful for teaching. Your point about NLD makes my case—very different from dyslexia and the learning needs are very different, too.

Excellent post, Susan — please hop up on your soapbox any time!
Elizabeth

Susan:

<>

And I still disagree. Dyslexia is a learning disability and a dyslexic student, needs specialized instruction. A student with nonverbal learning disabilities has their own set of learning needs that may differ from other LDs. There are many types of learning disabilities, I agree, some more specific than others. But if states and districts do away with the current criterion for identifying children with specific learning disabilities, Special Ed. will become a dumping ground, and those students who are truly LD, will not receive the specialized, small-group instruction that they need in order to learn to their intellectual ability level.

<>

Please, I hope you didn’t think I was referring to you about ill-trained teachers in my post. Not at all. Please accept my apologies if you thought I was. My point was that your statement about learning disabilities not meaning anything is true, if the Special Ed. teachers teaching them are not trained to address their specific learning needs.

<>

I begged for training in Wilson for the longest time, and finally ended up having to do it myself—just the 2-day overview. I would still like to be Wilson certified, eventually, and have been begging and pleading for my district to provide the training. Then I went for the Lindamood-Bell training in LiPS, V/V, Seeing Stars, and the LAC test. Even though I ended up paying for all of my training so far, I feel that I’m actually accomplishing something in my resource room now. Training makes all the difference in the world. There should be more training provided in other areas of LD as well. Then the term would not be as meaningless.

<<…As a teacher I just want to help kids learn and succeed and feel emotionally safe at school. I don’t care what the label or if they have one. I would if it helped me diagnose teaching and learning issues but it doesn’t..>>

That’s great! Then you obviously have no problems with the concept of the cross-categorical Special Ed. classroom or the inclusion concept. I’d prefer the days when we taught in our specialization areas. We can compare ourselves to the medical world. You would be the family practitioner, where I would be the ENT person. I would still need to know general medicine, but I would be working with the population in which I was specially trained to teach. We’d both be happy. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Marilyn

> I am curious, what would be helpful? As I previously
> mentioned, I don’t think many clinicians go far enough in
> pinpointing the exact problem areas. Is that what you’re
> looking for or is it something else?

Curriculum-based probes and criterion-referenced tests that measure deficits in reading—phonemic awareness, decoding, fluency, and comprehension—are much more beneficial from a teaching perspective than standardized tests. Those tests are needed for determining eligibility and need for services (in my state for LD), but don’t seem to mean much else for teaching. Math is a little easier than reading and written language because the scope & sequence is more universally accepted. I use mainly work samples for evaluating instructional needs in written language.

Additionally, things like observing students during independent and group work and play help to know what they need to learn in order to be functioning members of the classroom society.

I believed that children with mild mental retardation needed “different instruction” from children with LD. I see kids with EMH (mild retardation) who have phonemic awareness problems (not including the Down’s population with muscle issues). I see them with letter reversals and without them—visual discrimination and processing issues. I now wonder if they are only labeled EMH because of some other problem in their world… After seeing enough variables in the world of LD, the term doesn’t mean anything specific to me—and my district is particular about eligibility. They don’t try to dump. There are just too many variables (5,000+) and the same processing problems can be present in those with a 65 IQ.

So what have I learned? That the same instruction may work for kids with lower measured ability levels as for students with true dyslexia. Perhaps the pacing, group size, and repetitions are different from kids with significantly higher measured ability levels—or with less severe processing deficits. There is no one compound that will fill the Rx everytime.

I look at how kids receive, process, store, and retrieve information. Reading is my specialty—regardless of what or any label given to a student. I can hold my own with math and written language, too.

Terms like “dyslexic” and “dysgraphic” have a better defined meaning. They still require more indepth consideration for instructional planning and implementation, but are much more meaningful than the generic term “LD.”

I am still thinking and considering—always willing to ponder a new perspective.

The big problem with educating students with mental retardation with bright students with learning disabilities is that the LD students are, as a rule, treated as if they are also mentally retarded. Unless the teacher is very well-trained to differentiate between the two groups and modify his or her teaching accordingly with each, teaching them together will not benefit either group.

I’m going to post here an excerpt from Barbara Guyer’s book, THE PRETENDERS: GIFTED PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIFFICULTY LEARNING (@1997). She explains it better than I can, not only regarding cross-categorical grouping and instruction, but full inclusion as well. See what you think.

___________________________________________________________

Ignorance of learning disabilities still seems rampant among professional educators. Many children in today’s schools are lost before they even really begin. Teachers unfamiliar with dyslexia or other learning disabilities fail to refer students for testing and remediation, while teachers who do have an understanding still haven’t learned how to teach these students effectively. Too many school administrators also lack an adequate understanding of what’s needed. They concern themselves with numbers of children on charts and numbers in budgets, rather than with measuring the effectiveness of academic programs (not only for dyslexics but for students in general).

A child who is dyslexic is often doomed to sub-par performance, when he or she is limited to the basal reader provided for all children and the regular classroom teacher has no idea how to teach a child who learns differently. Often, students are all expected to follow the same reading path together. Those who can’t make the climb are simply left to repeat the year, usually with the same ineffective teaching techniques in place.

Many school systems now group students with developmental disabilities (such as mental retardation, autism, and cerebral palsy), emotional disturbances, and learning disabilities together in classrooms. If there is a more harmful way to group exceptional children, I don’t know what it is. The intelligence of people with learning disabilities is as good as, and can even be superior to, the intelligence of normally achieving students. We know this from current research, yet we continue to act counter to this knowledge by mixing students with learning disabilities in with children who are mentally retarded.

Children with learning disabilities are not mentally retarded. The potentials of the two groups are quite different. Furthermore, the students who are mentally retarded can become discouraged when they see their slower progress being compared with the progress of properly taught students with learning disabilities.

I’m even more concerned about the current trend for total inclusion. In this approach, all exceptional children are integrated into the regular classroom and spend the whole day there. The idea is that a special education teacher will work with the regular classroom teacher to suggest appropriate materials and techniques for those with special needs. But how can one regular classroom teacher, even a “super-teacher” meet the needs of twenty normally-achieving children, one physically handicapped child, one mentally retarded child, two learning disabled children, and one child who has a visual problem? In my opinion, all the children will suffer.

My fear is that many of our children will be lost or fail to reach their potential if they spend too much time in the regular classroom and do not receive concentrated attention to their specific needs. Packing one classroom jam full of problems—an excess of problems—is not the way to solve any of those problems.

Every child needs to succeed in some way. If a child doesn’t experience academic success, that child often becomes a bully, a goof-off, a drug abuser, or an emotional wreck. I believe we are going to produce more social and academic disasters than we’ve had up to now.

Each person in this book responded to dyslexia, and other learning disorders, in a different way. But they all have one thing in common—an absolute refusal to give up. Their lives also exemplify the pain and heartbreak that can result from problems affecting reading and written language, especially if those problems are misdiagnosed, ignored, or mistreated.

It is this pain and heartbreak of millions of the learning disabled in our society that resonates with me most in moments when I sit alone and think about where we are now in our understanding, and how much further we still have to go. (pp. 159-60, Chapter 10: “The Achievers,” The Pretenders: Gifted People Who Have Difficulty Learning, by Barbara P. Guyer, Ph.D., @1997)

___________________________________________________________

I can certainly see how mixing the two groups of exceptional students together, and treating them as if they were the same, could hurt them all. I really think that teaching them separately is a better idea, myself.

Yours truly,
Kathy G.

Susan Long wrote:
>
> I believed that children with mild mental retardation needed
> “different instruction” from children with LD. I see kids
> with EMH (mild retardation) who have phonemic awareness
> problems (not including the Down’s population with muscle
> issues). I see them with letter reversals and without
> them—visual discrimination and processing issues. I now
> wonder if they are only labeled EMH because of some other
> problem in their world… After seeing enough variables in
> the world of LD, the term doesn’t mean anything specific to
> me—and my district is particular about eligibility. They
> don’t try to dump. There are just too many variables
> (5,000+) and the same processing problems can be present in
> those with a 65 IQ.
>
> So what have I learned? That the same instruction may work
> for kids with lower measured ability levels as for students
> with true dyslexia. Perhaps the pacing, group size, and
> repetitions are different from kids with significantly higher
> measured ability levels—or with less severe processing
> deficits. There is no one compound that will fill the Rx
> everytime.
>
> I look at how kids receive, process, store, and retrieve
> information. Reading is my specialty—regardless of what or
> any label given to a student. I can hold my own with math
> and written language, too.
>
> Terms like “dyslexic” and “dysgraphic” have a better defined
> meaning. They still require more indepth consideration for
> instructional planning and implementation, but are much more
> meaningful than the generic term “LD.”
>
> I am still thinking and considering—always willing to ponder
> a new perspective.

As a parent, I was saddened by students and teachers referring to my son and other students with learning disorders as “slow learners” or even sometimes as retarded. My child’s self image suffered because he just couldn’t avoid letting other people’s words become his reality. I’m very sensitive to quick versus slow “inputers”, “processors”, “retrievers”, and “outputers,” regardless of disabling condition but with careful attention to the skill being remediated.

It is important to group children for a unit of instruction and then to take stock of who is ready to move to the next unit and who needs to repeat the last unit. My EMH kids generally need encore performances. Sometimes, though, just as many severe speech/language students may also—depending on what segment we are doing. Students measured with borderline ability and those with emotional disorders might have issues across the reading spectrum, too.

This is really more task focused than global. It is a different way of categorizing.

Susan:

<>

That is what I am trying to say. Educating LD students with other disabilities and/or slow learners does do harm to the LD child’s self-esteem. The term “learning disabilities” does mean something. Their specific needs need to be addressed. And, by classifying “slow learners” as learning disabled, we’re manufacturing the dumping ground that I referred to, earlier. Yes, slow learners require remediation, but it is not the Special Ed. teacher’s job to do this, unless it is within an inclusion setting. I personally don’t feel that an inclusion-type setting is an ideal placement for the LD student, unless part of the day is pull-out, and his/her specific needs are addressed.

<>

Absolutely. I agree. However, due to scheduling issues, we may have several different levels of students with us at the same time. And, in a cross-categorical classroom, more than likely, the true LD students, the ones with the highest ability level, will get the least amount of required instruction.

Marilyn

Kathy G.

<>

Thank you for posting this. Barbara Guyer explained it better than I was able to do as well. And it is in the training that determines how well the LD child learns. I honestly feel that we should leave the LD definition as it is.

Marilyn

For my son it is not even the amount of instruction but the way things are presented.

Alot of slow learners need repetition and rote memorization. Their higher brain functioning is where the problem is.

My son is the opposite, rote memorization is a nightmare for him. He can grasp concepts easily when explained verbally without alot of visual noise. He loves to ponder complex scientific principles.

I was driving home from swimming with my friend who’s son also has LD. The 2 boys ages 7 and 8 were in the back discussing electricity. They pondered why the rubber on the bottom of your sneakers protected you if you were struck. They asked, “Did the rubber absorb the electrical charge or did the rubber cause the electricity to bounce off somehow?” This went on and on with many theories about the principles of electricity and the way it acts in a variety of areas.

I don’t understand how these children can be placed with slow learners.

Half or more of the world equates LD with slow learner. No matter how hard we try to change perceptions, they remain.

I have come to believe that we are responsible to a whole community of learners, regardless of their disabling condition. I group them for instructional units—segments—then regroup if needed for the next segment. Sometimes there are kids who don’t qualify for any special services in there with all different kinds of sped kids. That’s when the stigma is really removed—when all kinds of kids come to the resource room for help on their learning when they need to do so.

Visual, auditory, and other perceptual disorders are not disability specific. Kids with all kinds of different conditions might take in, process, store, retrieve, and output information similarly. Kids without disabilities, too. Some do it faster—so I move them along faster. Some need more repetitions, so I do this for them.

At one time, I was 180 degrees on this. It is about measurable results for all students—regardless of the existence of a disabling condition. As a teacher, certified in regular and special education, I help all kids who are struggling to learn…not just those with IEP’s. It is just the philosophy of my school and district. I like it.

When I sat on our state’s sped plan committee, I agreed with you. I still do because, the label is still needed for money purposes and to preserve student rights in the system. I’m not sure what that actually means in bottom line performance, but in the absence of something else—I voted to keep the label and the discrepancy formula.

I would like to use terms like dyslexia and dysgraphia instead, though. Just my personal preference.

If you were to do repetitive rote visually based learning with my son you could do it till the cows come home and he wouldn’t get it. His teacher last year insisted that he learn through the 1-100 numbers chart. He would just stare at it and not understand what she wanted.

I have taught him most of the math facts he was supposed to learn during the school year using his auditory strengths before introducing the visual work sheets. We did this in one month. He understands everything he hears. In your class you may put him in the slower group because his speed in learning is definitely affected by how he is taught. Children learn differently.
This is also why the word lists he was supposed to memorize failed him and phonographix which works well with a child with auditory strengths was a godsend.

We also do exercises to improve his visual perception. This is seperate from acquiring the content he needs to keep up.

Perhaps if we are successful with his visual perception remediation it won’t matter how he is taught.

> His teacher last year insisted that he learn
> through the 1-100 numbers chart. He would just stare at it
> and not understand what she wanted.

How sad that that teacher continued to use a strategy that was not bringing results positive results.

> I have taught him most of the math facts he was supposed to
> learn during the school year using his auditory strengths
> before introducing the visual work sheets.

How sad that “visual work” is so commonly referred to as worksheets. It can be so many more things.

>In your class you may put him in the slower group because his speed in >learning is definitely affected by how he is taught.

I don’t have “fast” and “slow” groups. I have skill-based groups that meet and break up based on learning needs in different skill areas. I try to present things more than one way to accomodate different learning styles. I also try to take stock often of who is benefitting from my instruction and who is still lost. Then I back up and try something else.

> Children learn differently.

Indeed they do—whether or not they are LD. We all have learning strengths and weaknesses. Brain-based learning research tells us this very clearly.

> This is also why the word lists he was supposed to memorize
> failed him and phonographix which works well with a child
> with auditory strengths was a godsend.

I’m glad for you and your child that you found something that is helpful.

> We also do exercises to improve his visual perception. This
> is seperate from acquiring the content he needs to keep up.

What sorts of things do you use? I’ll be working with tiny kids some next year and may want to add something to my own repertoire.

> Perhaps if we are successful with his visual perception
> remediation it won’t matter how he is taught.

I think it will help him use visual information more efficiently.

I had a cross-categorical 11th grade English class last year. I had three students basically classified mild MR. I am sure that you know that I use Phono-Graphix for my reading program no matter what the diagnosis. It has taught the dyslexic, CAPD, Mentally Challenged, ADHD, garden variety reading problems, dysteachia and emotionally disturbed. I have even taught a MR/autistic. Here in VA, misdiagnosis of MR is very prevalent. In a middle school in Reston, we had four seventh graders that were always in MR classes graduate to LD. They had been in the wrong placement since they were in first grade! I used Step Up to Writing for teaching the writing process and all three of my mentally challenged students gave me a two page research paper. I think that if you have mild and moderate with LD students in a self-contained classroom it is okay just so you are remediating their deficiencies with the outcome to be teamed or regular classes the following year. I have just three kids in remaining in self-contained classes next year (12th grade) from my 14 self-contained kids this year. Schools have a way of forgetting about the adapted behavior piece for diagnosis of MR and just going on IQ alone. They also don’t understand that the longer a kid can’t read, they can loose up to 50 IQ points. (Matthews affect) This is another great reason to get rid of IQ testing for the discrepancy issue. It just doesn’t mean anything. I am going to have some MR kids in my reading class this year and I really don’t care. If a kid can’t read, I don’t care what his label is, I’ll teach him how to read.

I do feel that the inclusion or self-contained cross cat classroom is no place for thesevere mentally challenged student.. In our school, they have their own classroom where they also go out in the community for life skills training, you know that adapted behavior piece. We had a mother who pushed it so that her severely autistic daughter was in the mentally challenged classroom, with advocate in tow and so she was put there with two aides. She had a severe behavior one day and injured one teacher and one aide. The teacher is still out and needs back surgury for two ruptured discs in her neck. (The girl grabbed her hair and shook the teacher’s head and may have caused permanent damage. The girl went to another public high school, and the aides transfered to another school. Her mother is in denial and our school district won’t fight her in court.

You are so right. That is how my daughter learns and she is finding college very easy. I tried to buy her a voice activated tape recorder and she asked me who I was buying it for? I put it back. Now that she can read, thanks as well to PG, she learns both ways, visual and auditory. Remember, k-12 kids are expected to learn visually and in college, they learn auditorally. I know some gifted and talented kids who quit college because they couldn’t learn as well auditorally and were devastated when they got Bs. It is all the way that you look at it. I sure envy my daughter’s ability to remember everything that she hears, I am too much a visual learner and didn’t do as well in college initially as Jackie is. Score one for the dyslexic!

My concerns are b/c my daughter has both auditory and visual processing problems. She has to work hard in both areas. Currently she is doing fine, but it’s almost like I wait for “the bottom to drop out”. Oh well, I guess I can’t borrow trouble. I’ll just have to wait and see how it washes out.

We started with dot to dot books, maze books and pattern blocks. He has done well.

I found a book called Helping Children Overcome Learning Difficulties by Jerome Rosner (through this board) He addresses visual and auditory processing issues and gives a program to remediate each. At first I thought it was a little simplistic but have since recognized simple can be good.
The reason I am buying into his program is because his program for auditory processing is alot like phonographix which has already worked for us. My son tested well on the books’ tests for auditory processing. I don’t think he would have if we hadn’t already done phonographix.

My 8 year old son tested at the kindergarten level for visual processing.
For the visual processing exercises you need a geoboard. He has to place rubberbands on the geoboard in shapes that increase in difficulty. Then I turn the geoboard 1/4 turn and he has to draw the same shape on a dotted map that mimicks the geoboard but it is on different points on the board. We do 5 per day which takes about one half hour per day. We haven’t been doing it long enough to see an effect but I will share with everyone if I truely believe it works. He is definitely getting better at the task of drawing the shapes. I just need to see that transfer into other skills like his writing.

I also have another book that has an extensive sensory integration program. I plan on starting after my son completes the program in Rosner’s book.

We also do handwriting without tears cursive. I added a part myself that I have seen my son’s OT do. When he gets stuck on forming a letter I draw the letter on the driveway and he walks the letter. This works incredibly well.

Yes, my son remembers everything he hears too. It is an amazing ability. He constantly bowls me over with it. I have always thought he would sail through college. He has an incredible thurst for knowledge and loves to ponder complex ideas. I could really see him going gaga over philosophy 101.

For now we will work on his visual perception skills. I am lucky that he his pretty cooperative about all the tutoring I do with him. I really have given him the responsibility. I say, “OK you say what we need to skip and what we need to go over more.” He is pretty good at deciding what he needs and realizes that he is not good in certain areas and is very willing to work at them.
The few times he has wanted to quit I say fine, close the book and walk away, usually a few minutes later he comes back and says he wants to try again. This is his work not mine. I constantly remind him of that.

I don’t believe in LD, per se. I do believe that human beings all have inherent strengths and weaknesses. I believe that intelligence is many-faceted, perhaps J.P. Guilford’s model came the closest. There are an astronomical number of processes our brain can and does perform. Each skill in life requires certain pathways in the brain be accessed, probably in a certain sequence, perhaps simultaneously with other pathways. How well our brain/central nervous system can perform these tasks may determine how good we are at certain tasks. In this sense there is no difference between a simply musculo-skeletal task and an auditory processing task. They both enable us to do something. Some things are not really necessary to quality of life, others are. We therefore assign them more importance.

So, I believe that LD is the result of the brain performing certain tasks poorly. My brain performs some tasks poorly, it just happens to process auditory information very well (this is not intelligence per se, but may slightly impact overall intelligence). A classic dyslexic’s brain seems to have difficulty with certain auditory processing tasks and maybe some visual processing tasks, too. It also usually exhibits sequential processing deficits (probably part of the auditory processing deficit) and working memory deficits, making it challenging to hold information in short term memory while operating upon it; an ability that does seriously impact word successful word reading.

Like all human skills, each and every skill or process probably can be performed along a continuum where most people would exhibit average ability, a few above and a few below. When we find a particular collection of weaknesses with respect to processing skill, we may have an LD. I think this depends upon whether or not that particular skill deficit is marginally or markedly low and the profile of other processing skills within the individual.

LD as such does not exist, I don’t think. Unlike Down Syndrome, which does exist, I think of LD as existing when a person’s intraindividual processing strengths and weaknesses fits any of several profiles that typically make learning to read, write, and a few assorted other things, very challenging.

Are there so-called nonLD persons who may exhibit mild cases of certain processing deficits? Of course, many of us to. If we lack either the breadth or depth of processing deficits then we are not said to possess an LD. As to remediating LDs, I also believe there is some plasticity within the brain, we have enough proof at this time to accept this. I do not, however, know whether the brain is plastic enough to become good at a task at which it was previously notably weak.

I know I upset some when I draw some parallels to sports, it is because I see parallels in learning, but not necessarily in the importance. Thus, if we believe that all learned behavior is based in the brain/central nervous system performing a complex sequence of processes, we can perhaps look to sports to get some ideas on just how much can be changed. I have certainly seen excellent 1:1 training make a very nice difference in a child’s ability to, say, ice skate. Poor coaching and good coaching lead to all the difference in the world. BUT, I have not seen good coaching alone bring a double axel to a child who just doesn’t really have the talent. If you look at the students of an acknowledged great coach, you will find that most are anywhere from average to low average in their categories, their particular talents may be maximized (and this maximization carries a price tag), but they do not all become “average.” There is always a huge difference between the talented and the not, a difference teaching alone cannot seem to eliminate. I believe this to be analogous of any human activity that is taught.

A double axle parallel to writing a brilliant novel. This not something most can ever be coached to do. It is not basic literacy which is certainly attainable with the right coach.

Please don’t compare a double axle to literacy.

I think I agree quite strongly in general with Anitya, that learning disabilities are just the low end of the continuum or distribution of abilities. If you score 80 on a particular test, you are classified as low average, but if you score 79, you are classified as disabled. Yet anyone’s score can vary by five points from day to day. This is the effect of our trying to draw lines where in nature there is only a smooth slope.
On the other hand, society does need to draw lines; we have to decide what kids to send to Anitya for help and what kids can do OK with just the classroom teacher’s assistance. I saw another post from Anitya a while ago where she outlined her school’s policies and apparently kids who need help are sent to her regardless of labelling; this is a very enlightened policy and we can only try to get other schools to do the same.
It’s vitally important to remember that test results and labels are not the law and the prophets; a test can give useful and important information, but it is only one piece of information from a limited set of questions and activities in a limited time. Labels are shorthand — often useful to save time, but also very limited — to give a whole book full of information in a short form. Professionals *should* take the tests and labels as basic info, but know enough to look further for more information and details and possible errors.

And yes, a double axel does *not* compare to literacy. Literacy is basic skating; almost anyone can learn basic skating if they have can walk, and almost everyone can learn to read if they have basic language ability.
A double axel is at least a Master’s degree, and not everyone can achieve it and not everyone wants to invest their lives in it; and that is fine because the world would be in bad shape if we were all clones.

When discussing issues on the web or elsewhere, there are always some people who use various logical fallacies to try to prove themselves right. (Some of you remember a few examples.) I’m sure when Anitya made the analogy she meant that basic reading compares to basic skating and so forth, and it’s important not to read things into an analogy that are not there.

Anitya:

<>

I believe the second part of your statement is more accurate. However, studies also indicate that the dyslexic person’s brain works quite differently than others when trying to read during brain imaging studies. Therefore, while Down Syndrome is due to chromosomal differences, the dyslexia is due to brain dysfunction. Even in college, way back when, we learned that learning disabilities were a result of brain dysfunction.

Marilyn

I agree with you post. There is definitely a continuum for all talents and deficits.

I just didn’t agree with the idea that literacy is as difficult to achieve as a double axel.

What an excellent interpretation of strengths and weaknesses you have written. My personal experience with my 10 yr. old son has proven to me, but more importantly to him, that teaching him in a way that he can relate to is enabling him to read.

He has spent 5 yrs. in sped classes and was not taught to read. I am not slamming his teachers I am saying that whatever methods they used did not make sense to him. Then we were fortunate enough to have a reading specialist do intense phonographix with him and he is reading.

It is working for him because he understands it. He did not understand the other phonics he was being taught. He was also give the same low level reading books repeatedly and was bored.

I am sure your students are lucky to have you as their teacher. It is amazing the difference you see in kids when they are told they can do something and shown how to do it.

I read the reponses and I thank those of you who did take the time to read my long post and present your ideas.

I do want to clarify a few points and invite more response, if you wish. I consider D.S. to be “real” because it is found generally on a specific chromosome and causes a collection of traits we think of as D.S. I don’t think LD is quite this specific. There are probably chromosomes involved. I tend to think of LD as the presence of enough of certain traits taken together. Yes, I agree that dyslexic brains are wired differently. No argument. I am also seeing high functioning autism and Aspergers the same way: as a collection of traits that may not be caused on a single chromosome. I do agree that the deficits involved in LD and H.F.A. are as real as can be and are not the fault of anyone, just the way the child is wired naturally. So, to change nature, in this child’s case, is abit like paddling upstream, often hard work, slow work and time consuming. You can get there. Presumably if you had infinite time you could get anywhere you wanted, paddling upstream.

That seems to be my concern in teaching the moderately to severely dyslexic child, the time to to the work that will progress the child. The state of CA authored a reading initiative document several years ago suggesting it can require 3 hours a day of appropriate instruction for YEARS to successfully teach these children reading. No one ever really defines EXACTLY what they mean by success. My standard is reading with appropriate, grade level accuracy, speed, fluency and comprehension, period. Nothing less. I rarely achieve this extent of success. I do achieve parts of it and my students do improve in all areas I have defined, over time. This is not good enough for me to be happy, so I still look and read the literature.

What is “basic” with respect to any human skill? That is another thing we really don’t specifically define. With the ice skating analogy (could have used sculpting, making free throws, running the mile, any single human activity that can be objectively measured), my point was not what is more or less valuable, simply that human learning that can be measured falls on a continuum. Most cluster in the average range for that skill.

If we lived on ice we would need to skate. If basic skating is merely stroking around and being able to stop, probably almost everyone could learn this. A small few would require ten or a hundredfold the amount of practice and instruction the rest of us might need. What is basic reading? Is it reading a 6th grade history book full of new vocabulary words? Starting about 4th grade, reading material becomes more sophisticated in terms of the vocabulary and sentence structures used. Many of my students who have average intelligence do not know many of the vocabulary words used. Is this basic reading? I am not sure it is. If you define basic as getting through school, college, etc., then many people won’t achieve this.

To me, basic reading skills are those reading skills that enable a person to function from day to day: to read menus, to shop, to read TV guides, a smattering (headlines, etc., not necessarily whole articles) of newspaper. It may not be to handle more technical reading. This is probably up for discussion. To me, a person who can read what they HAVE to read and can perform a semi-skilled to skilled job probably has basic reading skills. It does not include going to college or reading a chemistry text. But, this is my definition of what “basic” is.

That we may currently demand far more than basic reading skills from our potential high school graduates could suggest that we are either: overvaluing a high school education (really how much chemistry do you need to work in food service or mow lawns or construction?). We maybe should reconsider what education is and should do. Maybe we need a 3 tier high school system such as much of Europe operates with. I did hear a speaker several years ago who did feel that we have actually devalued college education by pushing the idea that “everybody” should go to college. When too many people go to college we find we get an overeducated workforce, we have bus drivers with B.A.s He was full of those kinds of statistics.

How much reading is required to work as a bus driver? What is wrong with having people who make a living in service jobs? Why does everybody have to take algebra? What is basic reading, anyway?

> Please don’t compare a double axle to literacy.

Linda, I do not think they compare in value or importance. I thought I stated that up front. I merely believe that learning, is learning, is learning. We can probably draw parallels from learning one thing to anyother, particularly when we are debating the degree to which effective teaching can change the basic structure that the individual seems to have been born with. Sports are easy to SEE the differences and you don’t even have to know much about the sport to see who obviously brings natural ability to an endeavor.

So, I’ll back off on the double axel and suggest that I know of children could lace up their skates for the first time and 6 months later successfully have a single axel. I also know of others who needed 3-4 years for that process to happen, under the same coach.

The issue is not that skating equals literacy, just that we can measure the effects of good teaching on children who have differing amounts of ability. The ability to read is also composed of skills that a person must be able to perform, but it is probably more demanding and complex from the central nervous system standpoint than a sport.

Thanks for reading my thoughts and taking the time to respond to them.

Frankly, I am thoroughly at the point that although I think spirited debate on such topics at times fun and useful I am not of that opinion that I can contribute further to any such discussions.

I have always felt that being challenged by intelligent people was something worthwile. I have always been one to respect and appreciate honest forthright opinions. It is the only way for true debate. I haven’t felt that has been welcomed, by me at least here.

As Linda Richman from Saturday Night Live used to say, “Talk amongst yourselves.”

I will continue to look for ways to help my own son and offer information about things I have read that will help other kiddos. I am done trying to speculate about the problems or lack there of in education overall.

good.

I am sorry you are feeling insulted. You seem to have completely misunderstood what I said. If you take exactly the opposite of what I said and are insulted by that, I really can’t apologize for that; please look at the post again and try to see the distinction I was making — for heaven’s sake, I was *agreeing* with you!

When discussing topics where there are many fine gradations and side issues, it’s impossible to give simple yes-no black and white answers; there are many shades of grey. I think you are missing the positive sides of many of the posts you are reading here. I’d like to suggest that you re-read the posts and see that everyone here really has been professional and supportive.

We are talking about whether dyslexia and other learning disabilities are a difference from the average in degree or in kind. You are arguing that it is a difference in kind; that dyslexics are in some way built completely differently than other people, say for analogy the difference between lions and tigers. Anitya and I believe that it is a difference in degree, say for analogy the difference between white tigers and orange tigers; and I believe that the more recent and more professional scientific studies support this interpretation.
On the other hand, Down’s Syndrome is definitely a difference in kind, a basic difference in the genetic code.
This is important, because if it is a difference in degree there are many useful things we can do, but if it is a difference in kind like Down’s Syndrome, we have to throw our hands in the air and say there is very little we could do except to mitigate the damage.
Anitya’s and my educated opinion (backed by a lot of scientific studies) that it is a difference in degree, just one extreme of the normal variation of humans, is a *positive* and *productive* approach. We believe that dyslexic students can be taught, that they are normal people like everyone else with skills and abilities in many different areas, and that all we need to do is to find the most effective teaching methods and apply them the best way we can and work hard, and we can expect our students to succeed.
On the other hand, we know that it is sad but true that Down’s Syndrome students have an absolute disability and will have to accept limited success in school and the working world and will always need outside support.
To treat you as an intelligent and capable person with many abilities who just happens not to find your talents in the reading area is a good thing, a compliment; we are NOT warehousing you with the unteachables. Of course, it does put demands on you to work hard on improving in your weak areas (and some people have trouble with that) but on the whole I hope you will agree with us that this is a beneficial approach.

I am not a poorly trained teacher but I am a poorly supported one. The state tells us to do one thing, the district another, the parents another, and the sped coop yet another. It isn’t often anyone asks me what I’m doing, why I’m doing it, and what I hope to accomplish. It seems the assumption is that we are all doing it wrong and we are poorly trained. I wish that I only worked with students that had true learning disabilities so I could remediate but that doesn’t seem to be what I get. That was in the old days!

Kids who are very tactile will also benefit from forming letters in sand or use of finger paint - and it’s fun too! I don’t believe that kids need to learn cursive - I don’t use it except to write my name and the way I write it, it isn’t legible anyway. There are too many important things to learn then cursive. If you have to, add that into his IEP stating that all written work will either be computer generated or in manuscript.

back in the days of dinosaurs - we worked with students that had average to above average intelligence, those days are gone. With the confusion of the law and the constant threats from parents of students not doing well in school and wanting to call it something - we now work with students that used to be considered slow learners. The attempts to remediate a “slow learner” is nearly impossible because their cognitive abilities are limited. Many parents have a difficult time understanding that there is a ceiling their child will hit.